Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.

  • Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    And your argument boils down to “Hitler was a vegetarian, all vegetarians are Fascists”. IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity designed to allow corporate entities to capture, control and milk innate human culture for profit. The fact that some times some corporate interests end up opposing them when it suits them does not change that.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Okay, we can set your support of cultural appropriation for profit aside for a moment, and talk about the thing I asked you to do earlier: actually provide an argument, rather than gesture at this imagined hypocrisy you are claiming.

      The fact you can’t do this, and the fact that you paint with a broad brush anyone who does not buy into your libertarian beliefs as a supporter of all copyright law (with zero nuance, of course) demonstrates your own hypocrisy, which is demonstrable.

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I already have:

        IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity designed to allow corporate entities to capture, control and milk innate human culture for profit

        I thought that was a prima facie reason for why they are bad, And no I do not believe all copyright law is bad with no nuance, as you would have seen if you stalked deeper into my profile rather than just picking one that you thought you could have fun with.

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity

          Great, now do you have any sources for this? Because in the real world, authors appear to disagree with you.

          “If my work is just going to get stolen, and if some company’s shareholders are going to get the benefit of my labor and skill without compensating me, I see no reason to continue sharing my work with the public – and a lot of other artists will make the same choice.”
          - N.K. Jemisin


          no I do not believe all copyright law is bad with no nuance

          Then you shouldn’t say things like “IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity”. In fact, since you don’t believe it, you should edit your comments to say something like “Some IP laws are bad.”

          Where do you stand on the case of James Somerton and his plaigirism of the works of multiple small queer creators? Is he entitled to their cultural output while bashing the minorities they belong to?

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            There are plenty from people who actually study this stuff.

            I don’t have a significant opinion on the Disney case, though I will note that it stems from the fact that corporations are able to buy and sell rights to works as pieces of capital (in this case Disney buying it from Lucasfilm).

            • LWD@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I appreciate you linking me a source that says the says the core goal of copyright is to promote the advancement of science and the arts.

              “The problem with modern copyright doctrine is not copyright in itself, but the seemingly limitless grant of rights on an insufficiently particularized basis. The solution offered is two-fold: the extension of copyright protection should be more limited, and the allowance of copying should be broader. This would ensure that copyright doctrine most efficiently incentivizes creation, by protecting what is creative yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works.”

              Which I entirely agree with!

              I appreciate you linking me a source that says the says the core goal of copyright is to promote the advancement of science and the arts, ie incentivizing creatives to create.

              “The problem with modern copyright doctrine is not copyright in itself, but the seemingly limitless grant of rights on an insufficiently particularized basis. The solution offered is two-fold: the extension of copyright protection should be more limited, and the allowance of copying should be broader. This would ensure that copyright doctrine most efficiently incentivizes creation, by protecting what is creative yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works.”

              And I totally agree! And if you agree as well, I don’t see why you would have any criticism of authors like GRRM and Jemisin who want to return those incentives.

              • Grimy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Stifling a writing tool because GRRM wants a payday, on the basis that it can spit out small parts of his work if you specifically ask it too, is the opposite of advancing the art.

                …yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works. Its literally the rest of the statement you put in bold, stop trying not to see on purpose.

                • LWD@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Stifling a writing tool

                  OpenAI is a corporation

                  GRRM wants a payday

                  I already mentioned that poor authors cannot stand up to thieving corpos like OpenAI. Maybe address the argument, not your strawman.

                  GRRM has been relatively handwavey about piracy of the movie adaptations of his books, so I’m not sure why you’re acting like he’s evil but somehow giant corporations get the pass from you.

                  stop trying not to see…

                  Just because Womble speaks in absolutes doesn’t mean everybody else does. There are already exceptions in American copyright law, advocating for slightly different exceptions is not the same as eliminating it.

                  • Grimy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    I’m clearly talking about the technology when I say tool (large language models) and not the company itself.

                    If we can’t freely use copyrighted material to train, it completely and unequivocally kills any kind of open source or even small to medium model. Only a handful of companies would have enough data or funds to build LLMs. And since AI will be able to do virtually all desk jobs in the near future, it would guarantee Microsoft and Google owning the economy.

                    So no, I’m not taking the sides of the corporation. The corporations want more barriers and more laws, it kills competition and broadens their moat.

                    I don’t think GRRM is evil, just a greedy asshole that’s willingly playing into their hand. I also don’t think loss of potential profit because the domain has been made even more competitive equals stealing. Nothing was stolen, the barrier for entry has been lowered.

                    This isn’t helping anyone except big name author, the owners of publishing houses and Microsoft. The small time authors and artist arent getting a dime. Why should literally the rest of us get screwed so a couple of fat cats can have an other payday? How is this advancing the arts?